One of the most popular fonts on Zazzle – an “elegant yet playful script” widely used on wedding invitations – is at the center of a high-stakes legal battle that goes to the core of what constitutes authorship in the digital age is playing out before a federal court in California. No, the case is not about generative AI and authorship (although, there are plenty of cases considering that right now); this one centers on whether a trio of “Blooming Elegant” fonts – created using a font-generating computer program – deserves copyright protection.
The Background in Brief: For decades, the U.S. Copyright Office has held firm in its stance that typeface designs (the way a letter looks) are not eligible for copyright protection. The rationale is this: Typefaces, like tools or blueprints, are considered utilitarian and fall outside the scope of artistic works protected under the Copyright Act. But the rise of digital font files has complicated that. These files – often in formats like .OTF or .TTF – are not just pictures of letters. They are sophisticated sets of code that instruct computers how to render letterforms in digital environments. And when that code is authored with creative choices, the law may begin to treat it differently.
A Copyright Case Over a Modern Typeface
That is precisely what designer Nicky Laatz alleges in that case that she filed against Zazzle, a print-on-demand platform that she claims exceeded its license to use her “BE Trio” fonts by embedding her fonts into its design tool, making them widely available to customers. Laatz – who claims that Zazzle made hundreds of millions in profits and avoided paying hundreds of millions in licensing fees as a result of its brazen theft – sets out fraud, copyright and trademark infringement, and breach of contract claims against Zazzle. But before the court can get to the contract or fraud claims, it must first decide whether Laatz’s fonts are protectable.
To make her case on the copyright front, Laatz submitted registrations for the BE Trio font software, classifying them as “font data.” (Laatz was instructed by the Copyright Office’s examiner to classify the works as “font data” as opposed to a “software program” that generates a typeface). She asserts that she hand-drew the specific visual representations of each character using a stylus in Adobe Illustrator, then imported them into FontLab – a professional type design program – where she manually adjusted vector points, refined stroke weights, and customized kerning and stylistic alternates.
While the software assisted in generating the final files, Laatz argues that the creative choices at every step reflect original human authorship.
This level of detail matters. The Copyright Office has historically refused registrations for font files that are generated entirely by software but has carved out an exception for “font programs” that embody “a significant amount of original, human-authored expression.” In other words, the tool used (like FontLab) is not necessarily disqualifying – what matters is how it was used.
Authorship at Issue
Zazzle, for its part, has argued that the BE Trio were largely generated by design software and lack the kind of human authorship required for copyright protection. The company argued that Laatz’s creative input amounted to using tools like Adobe Illustrator and FontLab to manipulate presets and export data, rather than independently authoring the font software itself – which falls short of the originality threshold.
That argument has resulted in a mixed ruling for Zazzle. In an order on May 9, Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that Laatz could not proceed with her claim that the BE Trio is protectable as “font data” – or the digital information that defines the visual appearance of text characters. While Laatz registered the fonts as “font data” at the instruction of the Copyright Office, the court found that the deposited materials (PDFs created using FontLab) lack human authorship because they were generated by software rather than hand-coded.
As a result, the court held that Laatz cannot proceed with her claim that the BE Trio is protectable as “font data.”
Not a total loss for Laatz, though, the court allowed her claim to move forward on the theory that the work may qualify for copyright protection as a computer program designed for generating a typeface. Judge Freeman determined that Laatz presented sufficient evidence that she hand-created the software that implements the BE Trio fonts on a computer at this stage, but a jury will ultimately to decide whether the software meets the originality and authorship threshold for valid registration.
> In the court’s words … “With the above requirements in mind, the Court finds that there are genuine disputes as to whether [Laatz] ‘hand-coded’ the BE software … Although much of [her] evidence may point to unprotectable drawings, and there is evidence to refute her credibility regarding her hand coding, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that [Laatz’s] copyrights are invalid for failing to contain ‘a sufficient amount of original authorship’ as required for computer programs that generate typefaces.”
The Bigger Picture
For type designers, this case is a rare opportunity to gain clarity on whether and when their digital work is protected under federal copyright law. Unlike graphics or illustrations, for example, which are clearly within the scope of copyright, fonts exist in a murkier space. They are both visual and functional, aesthetic and executable. This duality has long made them vulnerable to misappropriation, often without much legal recourse.
As more creative work is done through code – whether in fonts, generative art, or AI-assisted design – the question of authorship becomes central. What distinguishes an original work from a software output? At what point does the artist’s hand recede behind the machine?
The case is Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., 5:22-cv-04844 (N.D. Cal.).
Share
